W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > September 2012

Re: 48-Hour Consensus Call: InstateLongdesc CP Update

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:48:01 -0700
Cc: 'Joshue O Connor' <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, 'Silvia Pfeiffer' <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, 'Steve Faulkner' <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-id: <8C31AD80-809F-4D9E-A6C5-CB86B9717468@apple.com>
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>

On Sep 17, 2012, at 3:26 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:

> Joshue O Connor wrote:
>> I think we need to step back further John. We need to work out what it
>> should be before we ask any vendor to implement a solution. They will
>> certainly support some form of long descriptor if it is present in the
>> spec. 
> If that were only true Josh.  We've had a "solution" for this issue for over
> a decade in the previous Specification, and have not seen any implementation
> in browsers worth noting.

Browser vendors generally make implementation decisions based on whether a feature seems likely to benefit end-users and content authors, not based on what is in what spec. Vendors are open to persuasion, of course.

> It comes down to 2 paths forward as I see it: one is that we mandate
> something that browsers will continue ignore, or we actively engage them in
> crafting the solution, one that meets all of the user requirements.
> I think it's fairly obvious which I hope will be chosen - the "which group
> dictates to the other" approach is not working. (I will also note in passing
> that active listening is a requirement on BOTH parts)

I think you are right about that. Unfortunately, the conversation still seems to be on mandate-or-no-mandate rather than engagement in crafting a solution.

Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 22:48:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:30 UTC